Hypothetically, let's say the creation of man was left out of the bible.

[yorost]

Evolution doesn't really conflict with Adam and Eve unless the story taken literally, which isn't something the majority of Christianity teaches.  I don't remember the precise Catholic stance on evolution, but it is taught as pure science in US Catholic schools.

[the Catfishman]

Evolution doesn't really conflict with Adam and Eve unless the story taken literally, which isn't something the majority of Christianity teaches.  I don't remember the precise Catholic stance on evolution, but it is taught as pure science in US Catholic schools.

A lot of people say something like this but can never explain what God actually does within evolution.

[yorost]

The answer would be nothing, God isn't necessary for the evolutionary process to occur.

[Ħ]

People treat life as an emergent phenomenon, but that can only be true in a multiverse.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea.

Let's say, hypothetically, that life has a 1/1,000,000 chance of emerging on a given planet.  Obviously it's much less but bear with me.  Let's also say that there are 1,000,000,000 planets in Universe X.  That means that we have a 1/100 chance of obtaining life in Universe X.  That's small enough to where we can bet it just won't happen.

But if we have 100 universes (a multiverse), then we can pretty much expect life to emerge in at least one of them.  Take it even further, say that time is infinite, say that there's basically going to be an infinite number of universes that come into being, and we can treat life as an emergent phenomenon that will occur.

But if our universe is the only one, then we're back to our original probability.  Life is extraordinarily improbable, and the fact we're here speaks to the existence of a creator.  Our assumption is that there is a single universe, and that whatever caused our universe's existence must logically be outside our universe, so we call that cause "God".

Most scientists today believe that we're alone because of how unlikely it is.

Sorry, but you're gonna need to source this.

I don't know where I read that.  Digging into my memory, I may be mistaken that it's the majority of scientists that don't believe in extraterrestrial life, but rather a growing number that don't believe.  Gotta apologize for that.

[yorost]

Hubble made your numbers grossly small.  I think estimates are Hubble can see hundreds of billions of galaxies, and spiral ones are one of the common types.  Each of those galaxies contains hundreds of billions of stars, and we're starting to identify extrasolar planets left and right.

You guessed 1,000,000,000 planets to go with the number of stars being on the order of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or possibly greater.

[Sigz]

Wow. You're toying so hard with the numbers it's not even funny.

1) I see no reason to believe the odds of life developing on a planet are even as low as 1 in a million. It doesn't mean intelligent life, or anything more than microbes, but still. It's kind of irrelevant, however, given that, 2) a billion stars is nowhere even near an accurate count. The number of stars in the universe is estimated somewhere between 3 to 100 × 10²² (thank you wiki), so unless you want to argue that the odds of life developing are on the order of 1/10²², it's bogus.

fake edit: and ninja'd by yorost.

[the Catfishman]

The answer would be nothing, God isn't necessary for the evolutionary process to occur.

Good, that's a little bit more satisfying. God created life (self replicating RNA), chilled out for a bit (4.5 billion year) and started acting on some species drawing doodles in a cave? Christians would be ok with that?

[RuRoRul]

Let's say, hypothetically, that life has a 1/1,000,000 chance of emerging on a given planet.  Obviously it's much less but bear with me.  Let's also say that there are 1,000,000,000 planets in Universe X.  That means that we have a 1/100 chance of obtaining life in Universe X.  That's small enough to where we can bet it just won't happen.

Obviously it's been pointed out that your numbers aren't a good analogy for the number of planets in the universe, but even using them:

If life has a 1/1,000,000 chance of emerging on a given planet then for every planet you have, it's a trial with a success probability of 1/1,000,000 (and failure propability of 1 - 1/1,000,000).

If you have 1,000,000,000 trials, then the probability of at least one success is 1 - probability of zero successes. Probability of zero successes is the probability of 1,000,000,000 failures, i.e. (1 - 1/1,000,000)^1,000,000,000 = approximately zero (shows up as zero on my calculator). So probability of there being one or more planets with life is approximately one, i.e. basically a sure thing.

(For reference, if it was a one in a million chance with a million planets, then probability of there being one or more planets with life would be about 0.63, I think. Since your example made it so likely that the chance of no life had to be rounded to approximately zero).

[yorost]

Yup, great point, I should have caught that.    

[Ħ]

Wow. You're toying so hard with the numbers it's not even funny.

1) I see no reason to believe the odds of life developing on a planet are even as low as 1 in a million. It doesn't mean intelligent life, or anything more than microbes, but still. It's kind of irrelevant, however, given that, 2) a billion stars is nowhere even near an accurate count. The number of stars in the universe is estimated somewhere between 3 to 100 × 10²² (thank you wiki), so unless you want to argue that the odds of life developing are on the order of 1/10²², it's bogus.

fake edit: and ninja'd by yorost.

I just made up numbers because it sounded like you didn't understand what I meant by a multiverse or life as an emergent phenomenon.

And the odds of life emerging on a given planet are on a grand scale.  Obviously, you can't calculate that kind of thing, but conditions basically have to perfect.  The emergence of RNA from a bunch of arbitrarily positioned molecules is no small thing.  Not to mention, it's got to survive and be self-replicating, and RNA is not exactly a stable molecule.


As for the math, I gave you the wrong hypothetical values.  I meant 1/1,000,000,000 chance of emergence and 1,000,000 planets.  Which would give you 1/100.  Obviously those are hypothetical values in the hypothetical universe that I made up, which I explicitly pointed out was a hypothetical one called Universe X.

[GuineaPig]

Given that it's very likely that life has existed on Mars, doesn't this shoot your whole "massively improbable" argument in the foot?

[Big Crouton]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

[Omega]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b1a7dbFUAAAAAAAJAA

There is also a huge problem that is being missed in this discussion. Think not only of the individual requirements for life to form (compositions, solutions, distance from stars, etc), but that matter is organized and adheres to mathematically symmetrical laws in the first place. Why does matter organize itself into atoms, etc? The organization of the universe, its laws and constants,  cannot be attributed to mere chance.

[GuineaPig]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b1a7dbFUAAAAAAAJAA

There is also a huge problem that is being missed in this discussion. Think not only of the individual requirements for life to form (compositions, solutions, distance from stars, etc), but that matter is organized and adheres to mathematically symmetrical laws in the first place. Why does matter organize itself into atoms, etc? The organization of the universe, its laws and constants,  cannot be attributed to mere chance.

Why not?  No one goes around thinking beaches are designed. 

[Omega]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b1a7dbFUAAAAAAAJAA

There is also a huge problem that is being missed in this discussion. Think not only of the individual requirements for life to form (compositions, solutions, distance from stars, etc), but that matter is organized and adheres to mathematically symmetrical laws in the first place. Why does matter organize itself into atoms, etc? The organization of the universe, its laws and constants,  cannot be attributed to mere chance.

Why not?  No one goes around thinking beaches are designed.

You have to be more specific; Why not what?

[RuRoRul]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b1a7dbFUAAAAAAAJAA

There is also a huge problem that is being missed in this discussion. Think not only of the individual requirements for life to form (compositions, solutions, distance from stars, etc), but that matter is organized and adheres to mathematically symmetrical laws in the first place. Why does matter organize itself into atoms, etc? The organization of the universe, its laws and constants,  cannot be attributed to mere chance.

Why not?  No one goes around thinking beaches are designed.

You have to be more specific; Why not what?

He bolded the part. "The organization of the universe cannot be attributed to mere chance." Why not?

[lordxizor]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

But did life actually start in those extreme conditions or did it evolve to survive there? There's a big difference. If life needs perfect conditions to start, but can evolve to thrive in almost any environment, it may not be all that common. If it can form in extreme conditions then it may be common.

[Chino]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

But did life actually start in those extreme conditions or did it evolve to survive there? There's a big difference. If life needs perfect conditions to start, but can evolve to thrive in almost any environment, it may not be all that common. If it can form in extreme conditions then it may be common.

Life originated it water, it happens to be a very reactive substance that is also plentiful throughout the cosmos. When looking at the extreme conditions of Earth, we have thousands of different environments an organism can live; lava flows, ice caps, in rocks, the artic, 4 miles below the ocean surface, etc... But they didn't start there. If you limit the origin of life to emerging from water only, the number of extreme conditions, or non perfect environments, shrinks greatly. When you look at how much water exists in the cosmos, it's not unlikely that the same process has occurred elsewhere.

[hefdaddy42]

Multiverses have no place in this discussion.  Not sure why they have been brought up.

Yes, the odds against life are small.  But in a universe this size, the odds against ANYTHING are small.  But it is big enough for the odds to still give possibility. 

In fact, H, I have no idea what your point is.

[Ħ]

Let me back up, as I've unfortunately been misunderstood, and I'm going to assume it's my fault.

I did not mean to say: "Given our universe, life is improbable."  It's been pointed out that this is false.  Our universe is well suited for life.  Hopefully I don't need to remind you that I believe this again.

I did mean: "Given a universe, life is improbable."  Given a random universe, with it's own set of constants, life is very improbable.  I don't know the physics of it (I intend to at some point) but it is said that if one of our universe's 14 or so constants were altered by a fraction, everything would be different and life would likely not emerge.  If you imagine that a universe is created by non-divine means, you can also imagine that it likely won't support life.

So we are left with three options as to why we are here:

1) Our universe is all there is, and it is by sheer dumb luck that our universe's properties were right for life.
2) There are multiple universes, and each time a universe is generated, a new set of constants are generated with it.  In this case, if we let time be infinite, we would expect life to emerge.
3) There is a divine source that intended on the existence of life and therefore created the universe to suit life.

1 is unsound from a statistical perspective.  2 and 3 are statistically sound, but the problem is that we have zero evidence for 2, and some evidence for 3.  As large or small as you care to acknowledge, the evidence for God is greater than the evidence for a multiverse.  So 3 is the most reasonable conclusion as to why life is here rather than not.

[the Catfishman]

Let me back up, as I've unfortunately been misunderstood, and I'm going to assume it's my fault.

I did not mean to say: "Given our universe, life is improbable."  It's been pointed out that this is false.  Our universe is well suited for life.  Hopefully I don't need to remind you that I believe this again.

I did mean: "Given a universe, life is improbable."  Given a random universe, with it's own set of constants, life is very improbable.  I don't know the physics of it (I intend to at some point) but it is said that if one of our universe's 14 or so constants were altered by a fraction, everything would be different and life would likely not emerge.  If you imagine that a universe is created by non-divine means, you can also imagine that it likely won't support life.

So we are left with three options as to why we are here:

1) Our universe is all there is, and it is by sheer dumb luck that our universe's properties were right for life.
2) There are multiple universes, and each time a universe is generated, a new set of constants are generated with it.  In this case, if we let time be infinite, we would expect life to emerge.
3) There is a divine source that intended on the existence of life and therefore created the universe to suit life.

1 is unsound from a statistical perspective.  2 and 3 are statistically sound, but the problem is that we have zero evidence for 2, and some evidence for 3.  As large or small as you care to acknowledge, the evidence for God is greater than the evidence for a multiverse.  So 3 is the most reasonable conclusion as to why life is here rather than not.

in 1, why do you assume it's all there is? why isn't it an option that there is another universe somewhere with the right properties? or am I missing something.

[Ħ]

Yes, you're missing something.

[Sigz]

I CHOOSE YOU DOUGLAS ADAMS!

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

You're assigning a special importance to our particular configuration of the universe when there's absolutely no reason to do so. Just because life can evolve in it does not mean that it's somehow more special or important than any of the other infinite possibilities.

[yorost]

Let me back up, as I've unfortunately been misunderstood, and I'm going to assume it's my fault.

I did not mean to say: "Given our universe, life is improbable."  It's been pointed out that this is false.  Our universe is well suited for life.  Hopefully I don't need to remind you that I believe this again.

I did mean: "Given a universe, life is improbable."  Given a random universe, with it's own set of constants, life is very improbable.  I don't know the physics of it (I intend to at some point) but it is said that if one of our universe's 14 or so constants were altered by a fraction, everything would be different and life would likely not emerge.  If you imagine that a universe is created by non-divine means, you can also imagine that it likely won't support life.

So we are left with three options as to why we are here:

1) Our universe is all there is, and it is by sheer dumb luck that our universe's properties were right for life.
2) There are multiple universes, and each time a universe is generated, a new set of constants are generated with it.  In this case, if we let time be infinite, we would expect life to emerge.
3) There is a divine source that intended on the existence of life and therefore created the universe to suit life.

1 is unsound from a statistical perspective.  2 and 3 are statistically sound, but the problem is that we have zero evidence for 2, and some evidence for 3.  As large or small as you care to acknowledge, the evidence for God is greater than the evidence for a multiverse.  So 3 is the most reasonable conclusion as to why life is here rather than not.

Your arguments are lacking.  You haven't explained any notion of what the random nature of constants would be.  What does it mean for a random universe to have its own set of constants?  Maybe we just don't know why certain constants are what they are.  Heck, gravity was a constant until we figured out it had to do with mass.  Maybe some are random, but in a random universe, as you put it, perhaps our constants are actually highly likely for some reason.  Arguing that slightly altering any one of 14 fractions makes life unlikely has what support?  Is there any research to actually support what possible random values of constants would or would not permit life?  Your basis for making your list is speculation on unknowns. 

Even with your speculation, I don't see evidence your list has to be the only possible scenarios.  There are fat too many unknowns.

[Chino]

Let me back up, as I've unfortunately been misunderstood, and I'm going to assume it's my fault.

I did not mean to say: "Given our universe, life is improbable."  It's been pointed out that this is false.  Our universe is well suited for life.  Hopefully I don't need to remind you that I believe this again.

I did mean: "Given a universe, life is improbable."  Given a random universe, with it's own set of constants, life is very improbable.  I don't know the physics of it (I intend to at some point) but it is said that if one of our universe's 14 or so constants were altered by a fraction, everything would be different and life would likely not emerge.  If you imagine that a universe is created by non-divine means, you can also imagine that it likely won't support life.

So we are left with three options as to why we are here:

1) Our universe is all there is, and it is by sheer dumb luck that our universe's properties were right for life.
2) There are multiple universes, and each time a universe is generated, a new set of constants are generated with it.  In this case, if we let time be infinite, we would expect life to emerge.
3) There is a divine source that intended on the existence of life and therefore created the universe to suit life.

1 is unsound from a statistical perspective.  2 and 3 are statistically sound, but the problem is that we have zero evidence for 2, and some evidence for 3.  As large or small as you care to acknowledge, the evidence for God is greater than the evidence for a multiverse.  So 3 is the most reasonable conclusion as to why life is here rather than not.

If we focus just on our universe, the constants are the same throughout it. The building materials we know of (92 formed in nature, not all that many), as well as the constant laws of physics, means that every solar system and galaxy were formed in the same fashion, with the same odds of life emerging. Granted the minute details of each celestial body can vary, but the processes that shape them are identitical throughout the cosmos.

We all assume life is so hard to create, perhaps it isn't. Just because we haven't cracked the code in a lab yet, doesn't mean that the universe doesn't have ways to trigger it time and time again. If we were to find even the most simple single celled organism on Mars, that without a shadow of a doubt means that the universe is teaming with life. If life formed on 2 of our 8 planets, 2 of only 3 that we ever considered habitable, that means its not all that hard to create, and if it has a 66% rate in our solar system, the odds are just as good everywhere else.

[Implode]

All this talk about probabilities of extraterrestrial life makes me think of the Drake equation. Is it taken seriously?

[Sigz]

Not really, in large part because the values for several of the variables in it are completely unknown (i.e. it asks for the fraction of life supporting planets that end up developing life, and the fraction of those that develop intelligent life).

[yorost]

No, Drake's equation was meant to stimulate discussion on the topic.  It is taken seriously in that it was successful at that, but it is not taken seriously as a valid model.

[Omega]

Also, life exists under some of the most extreme conditions on earth (vast depths of the ocean, remarkably hot places, and even arsenic based life in an environment that would be highly toxic to carbon based life [that may be a shitty simplification of that fairly recent discovery, but the point remains]).

It's looking less and less likely that life is a terribly fragile thing that can only exist in a current earth-like environment.  It seems that life is remarkably resilient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b1a7dbFUAAAAAAAJAA

There is also a huge problem that is being missed in this discussion. Think not only of the individual requirements for life to form (compositions, solutions, distance from stars, etc), but that matter is organized and adheres to mathematically symmetrical laws in the first place. Why does matter organize itself into atoms, etc? The organization of the universe, its laws and constants,  cannot be attributed to mere chance.

Why not?  No one goes around thinking beaches are designed.

You have to be more specific; Why not what?

He bolded the part. "The organization of the universe cannot be attributed to mere chance." Why not?

Because chance is not a causal agent; chance is merely the description of the (mathematical) possibility of an event occurring in an established system. The design of the universe cannot be attributed to chance.

And the misconception that life is a commonly re-occurring happenstance that occurs is actively and incorrectly being re-promulgated here; the formation of life rests upon trillions upon trillions of variables (reactivity of elements, the mass of molecules, the reactivity of water, the presence of heat, the presence of oxygen, the entropy present in the initial moments following the Big Bang, the potency of gravity, etc) lining up at precisely the right times that the possibility of finding life beyond our Earth is incomprehensibly unlikely (although not impossible). The formation of life in light of the infinitely massive odds against it is analogous to a miracle. And even if we find life somewhere else in the universe, will the existence of God be any less likely? Not at all.

Also, again, I urge you (all intersted) to watch this video on the conditions necessary for the formation of life. Summarizing it not only will not do it justice; it would take much of my valuable time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htfl2rXFezo&feature=g-u-u&context=G2b1a7dbFUAAAAAAAJAA

[Ħ]

I CHOOSE YOU DOUGLAS ADAMS!

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

You're assigning a special importance to our particular configuration of the universe when there's absolutely no reason to do so. Just because life can evolve in it does not mean that it's somehow more special or important than any of the other infinite possibilities.

This has been bothering me all morning.  Admittedly I don't know much about the fine tuning argument or it's refutations.  But what you're saying makes sense.  Any universe is an unlikely one.  Looking at what I know about continuous normal distrubutions, the probability of any individual point is 0.  What you said previously, that we as humans ascribe significance to phenomena, ties into this current discussion, in that the fine tuning argument assumes that life is special.  I don't know how to respond.

[hefdaddy42]

The way to respond is that there is your choice # 3 is NOT "more likely" than your choice # 1.

[kári]

For the record, I think life is something that is pretty common in our universe. Bacterias that is. A strong suggestion for this is the numerous micro-societies that we have on earth surrounding for example outlets of heat from within the earth deep in the ocean.
So many people seem to think though that once bacterial life develops, evolution takes care of the rest. In my opinion, this is just not true. I consider it highly improbable for bacterial life to slowly evolve into "complex" life, let alone that those complex life forms will evolve into intelligent life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

[Vivace]

. You have a story that in no way shape or form be tweaked to fit in with scientific discovery.

yes it does..  you mention again that god guided evolution, while I mentioned that evolution doesn't have room for forcing that in there.. ?  So somewhere, Christians need to place 'God' in the theory of evolution while it is already on it's own a perfect simple, elegant explanation of how species arise.

The problem with this is that it assumes evolution answers all questions about our existence, however it raises it's own questions. For example, if evolution is what made us reasonable creatures and we evolved from creature "x", then could we not then artificially "tweak" the genes of creature "x" to create us? Sure, we have tweaked the genes of apes to get them to be more human but only in the areas of writing, language and drawing for the most part. There has yet to be the breakthrough where such animals start to develop a reasonable discourse about life, discuss philosophy, convey ideas, tell stories, etc. How does evolution help explain our abilities in these fields? Now before anyone gets on a soapbox, I support the idea of evolution, but I support it with theology as I follow the idea that faith and reason cannot be separate, that intrinsically, we have a connection to God simply through the default action that we have knowledge to convey ideas, tell stories and have a theology to being with. Thus evolution must connect with theology and God in some way. The traits of reason we possess I have yet to hear exist in any other creature on this planet. Granted that's a generalist statement but the idea is still reasonable. Evolution is nice, but limiting as it fails to explain who we are and why we are.

edit: let's say that another creature suddenly did start to possess our abilities. how does this still answer the question of where they came from? How does evolution still answer this question? What are the genes that allow us to have such abilities we possess?

[hefdaddy42]

Evolution is nice, but limiting as it fails to explain who we are and why we are.

Those are philosophical questions outside the purview of science.  Evolution has nothing to do with those areas, so it can't be held at fault for not addressing them.  That is like saying your car door is limiting as it fails to open cans of tomatoes.

[GuineaPig]

. You have a story that in no way shape or form be tweaked to fit in with scientific discovery.

yes it does..  you mention again that god guided evolution, while I mentioned that evolution doesn't have room for forcing that in there.. ?  So somewhere, Christians need to place 'God' in the theory of evolution while it is already on it's own a perfect simple, elegant explanation of how species arise.

There has yet to be the breakthrough where such animals start to develop a reasonable discourse about life, discuss philosophy, convey ideas, tell stories, etc.

Some would say otherwise.